I have found two lengthy, detailed papers about physical appearance
and its effect upon jurors. Each paper includes a list of references
which may be useful to you:
How does a defendant's physical attractiveness affect jurors' decisions?
http://www.anselm.edu/internet/psych/theses/2005/scangas/Website.html
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL TRIALS
http://www.rcwlawyers.com/pdf/Wiley.pdf
Some other material that may be of interest to you:
"Effran (1974) examined the role of attractiveness in the decision
making process of a jury experiment by creating scenarios of male and
female students with various attractiveness levels. Results show that
both attractive male and female defendants benefitted from their looks
and were perceived as less guilty when compared to the unattractive
defendants. Castellow et al. (1990) directly investigated the impact
of physical attractiveness and sexual harassment charges in a
simulated jury experiment. They created a sexual harassment trial
summary varying the level of attractiveness of the plaintiff as well
as the defendent. The scenario itself included the description of
allegations of progressive unwanted sexual advances, as well as the
defendent's steadfast denial of all allegations. Results indicated
that being physically attractive helps both the plaintiff and the
defendant. The mock jurors were less likely to believe an unattractive
plaintiff (in favor of the attractive defendent), and were more likely
to convict an unattractive defendent (in favor of the attractive
plaintiff). Further, evidence was provided that both men and women
were influenced by attractiveness to a similar degree."
The Perception of Sexual Harassment in Higher Education
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_11_40/ai_57533232
"A well-recognized problem (which is not always viewed as a problem by
lawyers) is the likelihood that skill of counsel is frequently more
important than the merits of the case. Less well-known, but no less
disturbing, is research indicating that many jurors are swayed by such
factors as physical attractiveness of parties, attorneys, and
witnesses; and that eighty percent of jurors decide how they will vote
by the end of voir dire."
REJECTING THE "WHIPPING-BOY" APPROACH TO TORT LAW
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Oliver1.htm
"This study does not support the hypothesis that the ?smile-leniency?
effect operates selectively for minor transgressions, but the
correlations between the other ratings yielded some interesting
results. Attractiveness was correlated negatively with ratings of
seriousness, for the murder conditions only, suggesting that subjects
who considered the murderer more attractive considered his the effect
of physical appearance on judgements.
Shoplifters perceived as more attractive however, were also considered
more likely to have shoplifted before and to shoplift again. It is
possible that attractiveness could be considered an advantage in this
sort of crime, giving the target confidence to reoffend. Although
significant, these correlations are small, and can only describe
relationships; further research is needed to investigate their exact
nature."
The Effect of Smiling on Judicial Decisions
http://psy.st-andrews.ac.uk/resources/proj197.html
"College students (N = 324) served as mock jurors in a simulated civil
case in which a male plaintiff accused a female defendant of sexual
harassment. The physical attractiveness of the litigants was
experimentally manipulated. Mock jurors were asked to decide whether
the defendant was guilty or not and to rate their certainty of belief
in the defendant's guilt. Jurors were more certain of the guilt of
the defendant when the plaintiff was attractive than when he was
unattractive. Plaintiff attractiveness significantly affected female
jurors? verdicts when the defendant was unattractive, but not when she
was attractive. With male jurors, plaintiff attractiveness
significantly affected their verdicts when the defendant was
attractive, but not when she was unattractive. Female jurors were
more likely than male jurors to conclude that sexual harassment did
take place, but only when the litigants were different in
attractiveness."
Effects of Physical Attractiveness When Evaluating a Male Employee?s
Allegation of Sexual Harassment by His Female Employer
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/docs2210/Research-WOT2-man.doc
"Additional research performed by DeSantis and Kayson (1997),
demonstrated this effect cross-applies to group situations as well.
They confirmed that the attraction level of the defendant was
influential in jurors' decisions, with attractive defendants receiving
lesser sentences. Since juries are considered to be small groups,
combined with the aforementioned individual studies, it is evident
that physical attractiveness has the power to influence both the
individual and groups in powerful ways."
Physical Attraction: Attributions
http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/Attraction/attributions.shtml
"What is Beautiful is Good
The most striking example is the halo surrounding physical
attractiveness. Different cultures perceive different things as
attractive. But within our culture, there is a good deal of agreement
on what is attractive and what is not. There is a correlation between
physical attractiveness (as rated by subjects) and a large number of
positive characteristics.
Ex 1: Physically attractive people are seen as happier, stronger,
kinder, and more sensitive than less attractive people. Of course
there may be some connection between being attractive and being being
happy or between being attractive and having good social skills. But
attractiveness creates a halo that extends to completely unrelated
characteristics.
Ex 2: Essays (with pictures attached to them) were judged better when
they were attributed to an attractive author.
Ex 3: The transgressions of attractive children were judged less
severely by adults than similar actions by less attractive children.
Ex 4: A mock jury sentenced an unattractive defendant to more years in
prison than an attractive defendant, even though the crime was
described in exactly the same words in each case.
Ex 5: Killing an unattractive victim gained a stiffer sentence than
killing an attractive one."
Context and Reasoning
http://www.ou.edu/ouphil/faculty/chris/context.html
"Various psychological studies have been conducted in order to examine
the influence of personal characteristics such as: race, age,
attractiveness, etc. upon the verdicts of both actual and mock jurors.
It has been found that sentences imposed by juries are significantly
related to defendant ethnicity and that sentences are further
influenced by jury ethnic composition in relation to the ethnicity of
the defendant (Daudistel, Hosch, Holmes, & Graves, 1999). Smith & Hed
(1979) concluded older defendants are judged more harshly than young
defendants and attractive people are judged less harshly than
unattractive people."
Attribution Theory and Perceptions of Criminal Responsibility by Mock Jurors
http://faculty.mckendree.edu/scholars/2002/henson.htm
"Attractiveness can even influence matters of legal justice. Some
researchers, using mock trials, have tested how judges and juries deal
with attractive and unattractive defendants. Many complex factors,
such as the severity and type of accusation, and the type of juror,
have been taken into account. The general trend, however, is toward
more frequent and more severe sentencing of the unattractive
defendant. But Sigall and Nancy Ostrove reported in 1975 that the
defendant?s use of his attractiveness in his crime contributed to the
outcome. Jurors gave less severe sentences to attractive burglars. But
attractive swindlers were judged more harshly, presumably because they
took advantage of their attractiveness in committing their crime."
Putting Your Best Face Forwards
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v5p652y1981-82.pdf
"It has often been claimed that physically attractive defendants are
less likely to be found guilty, or that they receive shorter
sentences, than unattractive defendants. However, the available
research suggests that such a generalisation might be premature. When
physical attractiveness is interpreted to be of assistance in
committing the crime (for example, the case of a young woman who
charms a middle-aged bachelor into investing money in a non-existent
business) jurors are prone to be more lenient on the less attractive
defendants. Furthermore, attractive defendants who offer no
justification for their actions tend to receive harsher sentences than
their less attractive counterparts. However, in the main, such
research is difficult to interpret. The subjective nature of physical
attractiveness makes it an unreliable variable for objective
research."
PSYCHOLOGY IN COURT: AN OVERVIEW
http://www.nuigalway.ie/law/GSLR/1998/art2.html
"One very interesting experiment showed the complexity that the
defendant-attribute effect could obtain (Sigal & Ostrove, 1975). This
study showed that juror's attributions of guilt upon a defendant, and
thereby their sentencing recommendations, vary depending on how well
the defendant fits the juror's stereotype of the crime and the
criminal that they believe is typical of that particular crime. Two
conditions were manipulated by the experimenters, defendant's
attractivity and the type of crime they were accused of, theft or
swindle. Two clear effects occurred. First, unattractive defendants
got larger sentences when being charged with theft. Secondly,
attractive defendants received more severe sentences, then
unattractive ones, when accused of swindling. The authors believe that
these effects occur because of how well the defendants fit the
stereotype for the particular crime. When attractiveness is related to
the crime, like swindling, the defendant appears to the juror to be a
more typical fit for that crime, and is thereby easier to perceive as
guilty. The same effect occurs for theft, where unattractive
defendants are perceived as being more typical."
The Faltering Common Law Jury System: A Psychological Perspective
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc24.html
Several of the papers cited above have made reference to these
articles. I have not been able to find these articles online, but they
may be available through your local library:
Cash, Begley, McCown & Weise, When Counselors Are Heard But Not Seen:
Initial Impact of Physical Attractiveness, 22 J. COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY
273 (1975)
Sigall & Ostrove, Beautiful But Dangerous: Effect of Offender
Attractiveness and Nature of the Crime on Juridic Judgment, 31
J.PERSONALITY & SOC.PSYCHOLOGY 410 (1975)
Dion, Berscheid & Walster, What Is Beautiful Is Good, 24 J.PERSONALITY
& SOC.PSYCHOLOGY 285 (1972)
My Google search strategy:
Google Web Search: jury OR jurors "physically attractive OR unattractive"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jury+OR+jurors+%22physically+attractive+OR+unattractive%22
I hope this is helpful. If anything is unclear or incomplete, please
request clarification; I'll gladly offer further assistance before you
rate my answer.
Best regards,
pinkfreud |
